A good name is better than precious oil, but you only get to sell it once.
Like the other Democratic sell outs on this issue, Grayson professes a love for net neutrality in the abstract and an utter willingness to prevent it from actually being enforceable. He therefore joined the 75 other democrats telling FCC Chair Julius Genachowski to take no action until Congress can pass a law to address this issue, which Grayson thinks Congress can do before the end of the year. I have no doubt that Grayson really believes that and is not merely parroting AT&T talking points. After all, the fact that Congress cannot even pass healthcare for 9/11 rescue workers is not an indicator that this would run into trouble. Indeed -- Grayson informs Huffington post that telcos "support net neutrality."
Of course, explaining incoherent bullshit like this is a little harder.
HuffPost asked Grayson if he'd support FCC action that would ultimately be substituted by congressional action once Congress got its act together. "I think both is not a viable legal concept. You either have regulations or you have statutes. You literally are not permitted to have a regulation on the same subject as a statute. The statute occupies the field," he said, following up in an e-mail to clarify that regulations are intended to "implement and supplement" statutes.
By this logic EPA should not regulate greenhouse gasses, because Congress may still pass a climate change bill.
A good name is better than precious oil, but you only get to sell it once. Sad for Grayson he sold it when the market cratered.